Howard Zinn cuts through this curricular fog: "War is terrorism ... Terrorism is the willingness to kill large numbers of people for some presumably good cause. That's what terrorists are about." Zinn demands that we reexamine the premise that war is necessary, a proposition not taken seriously in any high school history textbook I've ever seen. Instead, wars get sold to Americans -- especially to the young people who fight those wars -- as efforts to spread liberty and democracy.

I guess it's because I spent the better portion of my adult life on the right of the political spectrum that I never heard of Howard Zinn until about five years ago....and I'm trying to catch up now. But, it wasn't just the right who shunned him. He couldn't really be found on any mainstream media programs or newspapers. A couple years ago, former NY Times foreign correspondent - Chris Hedges informed us that the MSM will tolerate critics as long as they work within the system. Once a critic gets so radical that they go beyond suggesting tweaks to the dials and question the legitimacy of the political and economic system itself, then they are disappeared from mainstream media and relegated to talking to foreign media and fringe media in the U.S. Hedges is another prime example.

And what Howard Zinn says is very true, because war is nothing more than state-sponsored terrorism, usually conducted by regimes with overwhelming arms and sophisticated technology. The leaders can pretend that they are going to war to spread democracy and overthrow dictators, but the money trail informs us that there are huge financial interests taken advantage of by all of the corporations who are swimming in the U.S.A.'s wake, and swoop in when the fighting dies down to take control of valuable natural resources. And terrorism is asymmetrical warfare carried out by nations or armed groups who are at such a great disadvantage, they seek out ways to scare a rich military empire into spending billions...if not trillions of dollars to fight the terrorist threat, and dissolve virtually all of their guaranteed rights and freedoms in the process. In that regard, the terrorists were very successful!

The USA is anti-terrorism, while Iran and others are known supporters of terrorism.

The USA is a commercial empire that uses its vast overwhelming military force to leverage on behalf of major corporations -- some of which aren't even based in America, which makes this game of international hegemony even more confusing! But the main game appears to be - the U.S. supplies the muscle, and the plutocrats supply the cheap, sweatshop labor-produced consumer goods for the American Market, and support for the U.S. Dollar to keep extending the line of credit to buy all that garbage.

And the USA cannot make a legitimate claim to being anti-terrorism when the U.S. sponsored the Contra narco-terrorists in Central America, who were even allowed to finance their operations through drug deals that put cocaine right on the streets of major American cities back in the 80's. Many of these drug lords that the U.S. is fighting now in their War ON Drugs, got their start as so called anti-communist forces. Check the archives at http://www.consortiumnews.com/1990s/consor30.html some time.

And re: a previous issue -- for what it's worth, New York politics (Democrat and Republican) are rife with IRA supporters....everyone from Patrick Moynihan to Ed Koch went out making speeches and hosting fundraisers on behalf of IRA front groups.

Remember, when they serve America's interests they are freedom fighters, when they are threats to American interests, they are terrorists! And as we've seen with Afghanistan for example, the same groups can drift from one category to the other over time.

That is not correct. One judge seems to believe that and others did not.

Now you know everyone that thought otherwise before the last judge ruled was overreacting.

Quote:

If you disagree with how it works you can provide a better alternative or stop complaining.

…or elect someone else who will.

Quote:

I am not as concerned as you are since I know I have nearly none of the information used to make the determination.

The only thing that concerns me is that someone was hospitalized for an overreaction. That it ultimately took more than one judge to figure that out is concerning as well, but immaterial. If there was something substantial, he’d still be in custody.

Quote:

You realize the changes you may be looking at are the Oklahoma City or Colorado type?

Some of the changes, yes, not that I’d mind a course of action that effectively reduces the magnitude that much if doing nothing maintains an Oklahoma City-grade baseline.

Quote:

No, I would rather fork out a few funerals and ER hospital bills. They are cheaper in the long term .... really they are.

Quote:

Quote:

Facebook posts, apparently.

That is one aspect ... public statements. Were there others involved? You have decided the peopel involved were foolish based on a very little information.

No, the last judge did that despite whatever information there was.

Quote:

Quote:

No, I seek correction. You can chase perfection, but you’ll never catch it. I don’t expect folks to sit on their asses and become complacent knowing they never will, however.

Sure sounds like it. What should these people have done when notified of the concerns? Ignored them until there was a history of violence?

Not at all. Wig out at any and all opportunities.

Quote:

How was it unnecessary?How do you know beforehend whether it is or is not necessary?

I don’t. I guess we should evaluate everyone who’s ever made similar statements.

Quote:

Unless you can give some clear criteria that works for all cases you are blowing smoke.

Steam, and I’m hardly interested in creating the perfect system. That’s a bogus argument and you know it. At the same time, I’m not interested playing it safe with criteria that is nearly impossible to validate in the first place.

Quote:

So how exactly was the first case determined to be necessary? Does that work for all cases?

Medication overdose—a concrete action demonstrating sole intent to harm or kill oneself. I’d say such actions, in addition to those that place others in immediate physical danger, necessitate intervention in any case, would you not? I’m willing to except high-risk sporting activities, including NASCAR.

Quote:

Sorry, it should have been "no, it wasn't and no they didn't" The one judge did not bleieve there was sufficient evidence but that still does not mean it was BS.

If one judge trumps another, the trumped one is just as good as wrong in their interpretation of whatever evidence there is.

Quote:

Quote:

So, you’re okay with the additional costs incurred to do what we did? Comfortable now, at least?

Compared to the gamble for not doing anything? Yes. The other option is to remove all acess to ranged weapons for all of us.

Ranged weapons weren’t what got the guy in trouble. That was his…er…computer and internet. Yeah, that was it.

Quote:

Quote:

For wasting time and money on a non-threat.

If they were not omniscient how do they know it was a non-threat?

Good sense, perhaps. I do realize it’s not that common anymore.

Quote:

Not at this time, but there is that first case for everyone.

Wow, everyone? I thought we were just concerned with those who talked smack.

That is not correct. One judge seems to believe that and others did not.

Now you know everyone that thought otherwise before the last judge ruled was overreacting.

No, just the people who, like yourself, have leaped to a conclusion without having any information other than the defense attorney's statements in the media or communication with the people who made the decision.

Quote:

Quote:

If you disagree with how it works you can provide a better alternative or stop complaining.

…or elect someone else who will.

Assuming there IS a better alternative, which is a big assumption.

Quote:

Quote:

I am not as concerned as you are since I know I have nearly none of the information used to make the determination.

The only thing that concerns me is that someone was hospitalized for an overreaction.

Not really as Tim Mcvey did not make some of the statements this guy did and he was the worst domestiv terrorist ever. If McVey had been reported you would have supported him as being an overreaction too.

Quote:

That it ultimately took more than one judge to figure that out is concerning as well, but immaterial. If there was something substantial, he’d still be in custody.

Not really, judges can make any decision they feel is justified discounting evidence accordingly. There was substanial evidence against OJ and he was released. It is not a perfect system in any case.

Quote:

Quote:

You realize the changes you may be looking at are the Oklahoma City or Colorado type?

Some of the changes, yes, not that I’d mind a course of action that effectively reduces the magnitude that much if doing nothing maintains an Oklahoma City-grade baseline.

Well, having a few more Oklahoma incidents is not what I would accept.

Quote:

No, I would rather fork out a few funerals and ER hospital bills. They are cheaper in the long term .... really they are.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Facebook posts, apparently.

That is one aspect ... public statements. Were there others involved? You have decided the peopel involved were foolish based on a very little information.

No, the last judge did that despite whatever information there was.

The first ones did not. What makes the one correct and the others not in this case?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

No, I seek correction. You can chase perfection, but you’ll never catch it. I don’t expect folks to sit on their asses and become complacent knowing they never will, however.

Sure sounds like it. What should these people have done when notified of the concerns? Ignored them until there was a history of violence?

Not at all. Wig out at any and all opportunities.

Compare the statements to those of McVey and tell me which sounds worse to you.

Quote:

Quote:

How was it unnecessary?How do you know beforehend whether it is or is not necessary?

I don’t. I guess we should evaluate everyone who’s ever made similar statements.

I beleive they are if they are reported.

Quote:

Quote:

Unless you can give some clear criteria that works for all cases you are blowing smoke.

Steam, and I’m hardly interested in creating the perfect system. That’s a bogus argument and you know it. At the same time, I’m not interested playing it safe with criteria that is nearly impossible to validate in the first place.

No, it is the reality with which we have to deal. Either we try to prevent the people like McVey or we do not. You seem to be saying not.

Quote:

Quote:

So how exactly was the first case determined to be necessary? Does that work for all cases?

Medication overdose—a concrete action demonstrating sole intent to harm or kill oneself. I’d say such actions, in addition to those that place others in immediate physical danger, necessitate intervention in any case, would you not? I’m willing to except high-risk sporting activities, including NASCAR.

So we wait until they show up in a theater or street corner and start shooting people or maybe just blow up a small building first.

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry, it should have been "no, it wasn't and no they didn't" The one judge did not bleieve there was sufficient evidence but that still does not mean it was BS.

If one judge trumps another, the trumped one is just as good as wrong in their interpretation of whatever evidence there is.

So if they appeal it againa and that judge were to side with the first judge you would not hava problem? Other than taking so long to make a determination.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

So, you’re okay with the additional costs incurred to do what we did? Comfortable now, at least?

Compared to the gamble for not doing anything? Yes. The other option is to remove all acess to ranged weapons for all of us.

Ranged weapons weren’t what got the guy in trouble. That was his…er…computer and internet. Yeah, that was it.

WE are trying to prevent the use of fire, explosions, and other such weapons BEFORE people start getting hurt not after.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

For wasting time and money on a non-threat.

If they were not omniscient how do they know it was a non-threat?

Good sense, perhaps. I do realize it’s not that common anymore.

That is clear given the stand some of you have taken. I would love to see you explain to the survivors of some of the other attacks how it is only "good sense" to wait until there is a concrete threat seen.

Quote:

Quote:

Not at this time, but there is that first case for everyone.

Wow, everyone? I thought we were just concerned with those who talked smack.

Not everyone talks smack before they do something like this. Look how long the Unabomber took to identify because he was quiet in identified communication.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I will never accept unvalidated methods, no matter how well-meaning they are, in place of a proven measurement/detection system. You'll have to show something other than peace of mind as a benefit to get my attention.

I will never accept unvalidated methods, no matter how well-meaning they are, in place of a proven measurement/detection system. You'll have to show something other than peace of mind as a benefit to get my attention.

Good luck with that in the realm of human interaction.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I will never accept unvalidated methods, no matter how well-meaning they are, in place of a proven measurement/detection system. You'll have to show something other than peace of mind as a benefit to get my attention.

Good luck with that in the realm of human interaction.

Thanks. Human behavior is a challenging frontier. Us operations folks are already butting heads over it with the environmental health and safety groups. Some things you just can't solve unless the human factor is removed, which of course is an option if one is willing to pay for automation.

Speaking of which, I'd prefer a world like Surrogates over Minority Report.

Thank you to my son, my nephews, my past uncles, my father, grandfather, and all the other men and women who serve and have served and a special thanks to those soldiers and their families who lost their lives for us. There is no greater selfless sacrifice.

Such a story. Epic.Lives lost to a story.Tragic indeed.They lost their precious and beautiful lives for a chapter in some history text.Tragic indeed.

To be selfless is an entirely different story.

Sons, nephews, uncles , fathers, and nowadays ... women .... (neices, aunts, mothers, grandmothers ...) only lost their lives because they lost their beautiful lives and nothing more or less.

Adds fodder to parades.

Senseless.

Selfless? Only if one sucuumbs to folly.

I know I will hear it now ..... the drums and the flag waving. There will be logic...

But when we send our kids to church on Sundays and then to war on Mondays ... and we insist that we LOVE our children? Did we have them as fodder? Are we a soldier making farm? And then we thank them for their "selfless" service? Really? Is that why we had them?

Defense of your way of life is not given to you by other folks who would be dictators or disruptive terrorists . It is more often granted to you by folks that risk their lives & futures to provide military support. As Nathaniel Hale standing below the Hanging Tree so aptly noted that his only regret was that "he only had one live to give to his country." Both my daughter & son believe that this country of Canada & continent of North America are free because our nations turned back the folks that would gladly enslave us. They are both highly educated students of life who feel they are doing themselves and their nation a service but it is their job to do so. As a child I learned one thing about the life of the pacifist. Until you prove you can beat the dictators and bullies you will get no peace no matter how hard you want to have it. Once you prove you can beat the bully ,you will know peace but you earn it first .

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Raleigh, N.C. — A North Carolina State University student was involuntarily committed last month for mental health treatment after confessing to campus police that he had planned to going on a killing spree, according to a court document.

Campus police checked on the student on July 17 after his girlfriend told officers she was worried about his well-being.

The student, a former Marine sniper who served two tours of duty in Iraq, told officers that he was depressed and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder.

<snip>

Campus police shared the information with Wake County prosecutors, but authorities said an investigation turned up no real threat.

The student was taken to the VA Hospital in Durham for treatment.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Raleigh, N.C. — A North Carolina State University student was involuntarily committed last month for mental health treatment after confessing to campus police that he had planned to going on a killing spree, according to a court document.

Campus police checked on the student on July 17 after his girlfriend told officers she was worried about his well-being.

The student, a former Marine sniper who served two tours of duty in Iraq, told officers that he was depressed and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder.

<snip>

Campus police shared the information with Wake County prosecutors, but authorities said an investigation turned up no real threat.

The student was taken to the VA Hospital in Durham for treatment.

after confessing to campus police that he had planned to going on a killing spree,

Raleigh, N.C. — A North Carolina State University student was involuntarily committed last month for mental health treatment after confessing to campus police that he had planned to going on a killing spree, according to a court document.

Campus police checked on the student on July 17 after his girlfriend told officers she was worried about his well-being.

The student, a former Marine sniper who served two tours of duty in Iraq, told officers that he was depressed and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder.

<snip>

Campus police shared the information with Wake County prosecutors, but authorities said an investigation turned up no real threat.

The student was taken to the VA Hospital in Durham for treatment.

after confessing to campus police that he had planned to going on a killing spree,

Uh, not quite comparable to the other incident.

Only that he was more cooperative with the investigation. No other aspects changed. An uncooperative person would tend to be more of a risk in such an investigational situation.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein